This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]On: 03 December 2013, At: 10:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Health CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hhth20

Perceived Discrimination as a Risk Factor for Latina/o Youth's Substance Use: Do Parent- and Peer-BasedCommunication and Relationship Resources Act asProtective Factors?Jennifer A. Kam a & Michael J. Cleveland ba School of Communication , The Ohio State Universityb The Methodology Center The Pennsylvania State UniversityPublished online: 25 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Jennifer A. Kam & Michael J. Cleveland (2011) Perceived Discrimination as a Risk Factor for Latina/oYouth's Substance Use: Do Parent- and Peer-Based Communication and Relationship Resources Act as Protective Factors?,Health Communication, 26:2, 111-124, DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2010.539180

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.539180

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Health Communication, 26: 111–124, 2011Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1041-0236 print / 1532-7027 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10410236.2010.539180

Perceived Discrimination as a Risk Factor for Latina/o Youth’sSubstance Use: Do Parent- and Peer-Based Communication and

Relationship Resources Act as Protective Factors?

Jennifer A. KamSchool of CommunicationThe Ohio State University

Michael J. ClevelandThe Methodology Center

The Pennsylvania State University

Based on general strain theory, it was hypothesized that as Latina/o youth experience per-ceived discrimination, they are more likely to develop acculturation stress and, in turn, morelikely to use substances. Two additional hypotheses were set forth to examine how parent- andpeer-based communication, relationship, and norm resources may function as buffers, therebydecreasing the likelihood that strained youth will use substances. Latina/o youth (N = 728)from 23 schools in Phoenix, AZ, completed surveys at three waves over 2 years. Structuralequation modeling (SEM) results supported the first hypothesis. Yet, contrary to the secondhypothesis, neither parent nor peer resources were significant moderators. Implications arediscussed for theory and parent- and peer-based prevention research directed at perceiveddiscrimination, acculturation stress, and substance use.

In 2002, U.S. national survey data revealed that over 80% ofLatinas/os reported experiencing perceived discrimination(National Survey of Latinos, 2002), a culturally based stres-sor that has implications for individuals’ mental health andhealth-related behaviors. Discrimination, a communicativeact, occurs as behavioral manifestations of prejudice in theform of unfair treatment. Perceptions of discrimination arerecollections of being treated unfairly as a result of others’negative attitudes based on inflexible stereotypes (Hecht,1998). Yet, despite this phenomenon’s prevalence amongLatinas/os, research on perceived discrimination’s effectson mental health and health-related behaviors among thisgroup remains limited (Araújo & Borrell, 2006). Althoughthe experience of perceived discrimination is itself bad,various more pervasive and negative outcomes are oftenexperienced because of the resulting distress, such as lowself-esteem (Moradi & Risco, 2006), substance use (Gibbons

Correspondence should be addressed to Jennifer A. Kam, Ph.D., Schoolof Communication, The Ohio State University, 3016 Derby Hall, 154 NorthOval Mall, Columbus, OH 43201. E-mail: kam.12@osu.edu

et al., 2007), and poor academic performance (DeGarmo &Martinez, 2006).

In particular, Latinas/os, who comprise the largest andfastest growing subpopulation in the United States (15%;U.S. Census Bureau, 2008), are especially susceptible toperceived discrimination and alcohol, tobacco, and otherdrugs (also commonly referred to as ATOD) use. Latina/oyouth reported experiencing perceived discrimination in theforms of being teased or singled out based on their linguisticskills and accent in addition to their physical character-istics (Ajayi, 2006), and they reported the highest ratesof adolescent substance use across most substances in thelast decade (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg,2007). Further, adolescents are at a developmental stagewhere their attitudes toward ATOD are changing and inwhich early experimentation with ATOD is an indicatorof later substance use dependency and abuse (Stipek, dela Sota, & Weishaupt, 1999). Consequently, understandingthe relation between perceived discrimination and Latina/oadolescent substance use has both practical and theoreticalimportance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

112 KAM AND CLEVELAND

One theoretical explanation for the health implications ofperceived discrimination emerges from general strain the-ory (GST; Agnew, 1992). Based on GST, individuals whoencounter a noxious stimulus (i.e., strain) such as perceiveddiscrimination are likely to develop a negative psycholog-ical response (e.g., anger, anxiety, distress). General straintheorists predict that individuals are likely to engage in prob-lem behaviors (e.g., substance use, theft, revenge) to managetheir negative psychological reaction to the strain. This influ-ence, however, is not inevitable (Agnew, 2001). Protectivefactors such as parent- and peer-based communication, rela-tionship, and norm resources may allow victims to handletheir strain, decreasing the likelihood that they will rely onproblem behaviors (Broidy & Agnew, 1997).

Given the potentially harmful effects of perceived dis-crimination on mental health and health-related behaviors,this study tests a theoretically derived mediation model ofperceived discrimination’s indirect effects on ATOD usethrough acculturation stress. Further, this study examines thepotential for parent and peer communication, relationship,and norm resources to attenuate acculturation stress’s effecton ATOD use. Testing these potential moderators sheds lighton possible resources to promote in culturally-groundedsubstance use prevention.

GENERAL STRAIN THEORY AS AN EXPLICATIONOF PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION’S EFFECTS

The basic premise of GST (Agnew, 1992) is that exposure toa strain or stressor is likely to induce negative feelings, andto attenuate such feelings, individuals may engage in prob-lem behaviors such as ATOD use, theft, or violence. Strainsdevelop from three sources (Broidy & Agnew, 1997): fail-ing to fulfill desired goals, encountering negative stimuli,and/or having a valued stimulus taken away. Perceived dis-crimination has the potential to act as strain in all three ways.For instance, Latina/o adolescents reported being teased andlaughed at by their classmates because of their linguisticskills, an experience that exemplifies (1) being exposed toa negative stimulus, (2) having their sense of comfort andsecurity removed, and (3) being prevented from fulfillingthe goal of social acceptance (Ajayi, 2006). When individ-uals lack the appropriate resources (e.g., supportive socialnetwork, self-efficacy, positive self-concept; Agnew, 2001),they are more likely to deal with the negative affect byengaging in problem behaviors.

Of course, using problem behaviors to cope with thenegative affect is not inevitable (Brezina, 1996). Generalstrain theorists (e.g., Agnew, 2001) argue that individu-als who perceive strains as unjust and of high degree aremore likely to use problem behaviors as coping mecha-nisms. Perceived discrimination is a threat to individuals’well-being, and individuals are likely to develop negativepsychological responses when being treated in an unfair

manner. The overwhelming feeling of being mistreated andthreatened, accompanied by limited coping resources (e.g.,lack of supportive network, lack of self-efficacy, negativeself-concept), is likely to make problem behaviors moreappealing (Pérez et al., 2008).

When considering the numerous ways in which individ-uals may respond to strains, Agnew (1992) described threeprimary ways: escape-avoidance, compensation, and retali-ation. With perceived discrimination, Latina/o adolescentsmay attempt to escape or avoid the strain by engaging insubstance use (Eitle & Turner, 2003). Alternatively, strainedLatina/o adolescents may compensate for their negativeaffect by using substances to replace such negative feel-ings with positive ones (cf. Brezina, 1996). Individuals whoexperience the removal of a valued stimulus or who aredeprived of a valued stimulus (e.g., feeling accepted orbeing treated equally) may try to obtain the desired stimu-lus through force or turning to substances. Finally, strainedindividuals may seek revenge by behaving aggressively, van-dalizing, or adopting other types of retaliatory behaviors toregain a sense of power, control, and justice (Brezina, 1996).Thus, reactions to strain may transpire in a number of ways(Aseltine, Gore, & Gordon, 2000).

Perceived discrimination’s negative effect on mentalhealth seems particularly apparent for Latina/o youth, whoreported more distress as they experienced perceived dis-crimination (DeGarmo & Martinez, 2006). Yet few studieshave considered perceived discrimination’s indirect effectson health-related behaviors among Latina/o youth. ATODuse provides a way for individuals to escape, avoid, andcompensate for the negative feelings resulting from per-ceived discrimination. Latina/o adolescents may engage ina variety of problem behaviors (e.g., violence, revenge, andself-destruction); however, this study focuses on ATOD usebecause Latina/o adolescents report some of the highestrates and they are at a developmental age where ATODuse attitudes are changing (Stipeket al., 1999). GST, then,provides a rich but rarely tested theoretical explanation ofdiscrimination’s effects on ATOD use (Agnew, 2001).

Acculturation Stress as a Mediator Between PerceivedDiscrimination and ATOD Use

Given that general strain theorists (Agnew, 2001) equatestrains to stressors, these strains lead to negative psycho-logical reactions that, in turn, have an effect on problembehavior. Past research (e.g., Pérez et al., 2008) on GSTfound anger as an intervening variable between strain andcrime. Yet when considering ATOD use, Aseltine et al.(2000) revealed that among high school students anger onlypredicted aggressive behaviors but not marijuana use, andanxiety did not predict any of the outcomes. Past researchexamining potential mediators yields mixed support foranger. Consistent with previous findings, Agnew, Brezina,Wright, and Cullen (2002) stated that “the impact of strain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION AS A RISK FACTOR 113

on delinquency is at least partly mediated by negative emo-tions like anger” (p. 43). Hence, the traditional negativeemotional responses (e.g., anger, frustration, depression) tostrain are only several of other possible intervening variables(Brezina, 1996). In the context of culturally based perceiveddiscrimination, this study examines how this strain predicts adifferent type of negative psychological response, accultura-tion stress, and whether this type of reaction has an effect onsubstance use.

Acculturation stress refers to the negative psycholog-ical experience stemming from the acculturation process(Miranda, Bilot, Peluso, Berman, & Meek, 2006). In par-ticular, acculturation stress may manifest in a variety offorms such as generational gaps in cultural perspectives,language difficulties, cultural clashes with others from theU.S. mainstream, or feeling caught between multiple cul-tures (Vega, Zimmerman, Gil, Warheit, & Apospori, 1993).Although immigrants most commonly experience accultura-tion stress, past studies reveal that second-generation youthalso may develop acculturation stress when feeling a dis-connect between their parents’ culture and mainstream U.S.culture. Acculturation stress for second-generation youthoften develops from a stronger sense of awareness withrespect to differing cultural practices and identities, ratherthan lacking knowledge of U.S. mainstream culture and theEnglish language (cf. Crockett et al., 2007).

Although much of the GST literature (e.g., Aseltine et al.,2000) concentrates on anger as a reaction to strain, cultur-ally based perceived discrimination among Latina/o youthis rooted in the acculturation process. Finch and Vega (2003)suggest that perceived discrimination is one stressor in par-ticular that leads to acculturation stress. Perceived discrimi-nation may occur between ethnic groups and within ethnicgroups (Codina & Montalvo, 1994). As youth experienceunfair treatment from others, cultural disparities and differ-ences between cultural groups may become more salient.Such experiences may manifest as acculturation stress, andas a coping strategy, Latina/o youth may turn to substanceuse (Pérez et al., 2008). Thus, this study extends the researchon GST by posing the following hypothesis to consider apsychological reaction relevant to the acculturation process.

H1: Among Latina/o youth, acculturation stress mediatesthe effects of perceived discrimination on ATOD usesuch that: (1) perceived discrimination is positivelyassociated with acculturation stress and (2) accul-turation stress is positively associated with ATODuse.

Like most stressors, however, perceived discriminationmay not necessarily lead to negative outcomes (Agnew,2001). Protective factors may exist that can ameliorate theseeffects (Crockett et al., 2007). In the case of perceiveddiscrimination, parents and peers can prepare youth for per-ceived discrimination and help them process the experiences

when they occur (Barr & Neville, 2008; Gibbons, Gerrard,Cleveland, Wills, & Brody, 2004).

PARENT–CHILD COMMUNICATION, RELATIONSHIP,AND NORMS AS PROTECTIVE FACTORS

Parents play an important role as a protective factor againstATOD use for youth (Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004). In thecontext of perceived discrimination, Agnew (1992, 2001)suggests that youth may depend on their social network(e.g., parents and peers) to deal with their strain, thus rely-ing on healthier resources. This may be particularly true inLatina/o culture because of its emphasis on close family andintergenerational relationships (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007;Halgunseth, Ispa, & Rudy, 2006). Nevertheless, not all par-ents use the same strategies to protect their offspring fromthe impact of perceived discrimination. Some parents teachhealthy ways of handling stressful experiences, while othersprovide unhealthy ways of coping or even provide negativeexamples (Neblett et al., 2008). Consequently, it is impor-tant to consider not only overall parental influence, but alsospecific parenting strategies, as potential moderators.

Targeted Parent–Child Communication About Alcohol

Despite past research pointing to general openness inparent–child communication as a predictor of decreases insubstance use (Kafka & London, 1991), Miller-Day andKam (2010) argue that conversations directly about problembehaviors may be more influential than general conversa-tions. Unlike general openness in parent–child communi-cation, which refers to openly conversing about any topic,examining parent–child communication about topics suchas alcohol refers to “sit-down” discussions with offspringabout the consequences of consuming alcohol (Miller-Day& Dodd, 2004). Parents may discuss alcohol use with theirchildren by warning them of the consequences in drink-ing alcohol, clarifying media’s representation of alcohol, orexplaining how to handle offers to consume alcohol. In thecontext of perceived discrimination, such targeted parent–child communication about alcohol may serve as a resourcefor Latina/o youth who experience acculturation stress fromperceived discrimination. Latina/o youth who have talkedto a parent specifically about alcohol may be less likely touse it (and other substances) when experiencing accultura-tion stress from perceived discrimination. If faced with theopportunity to use ATOD, these youth may remember thediscussions they had with a parent and turn to alternativeand healthier ways to handle their negative experiences.

Parental Monitoring Knowledge and Behaviors

Past research also points to parental monitoring knowledgeand behaviors as important protective factors against risky

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

114 KAM AND CLEVELAND

behavior, including ATOD use (Li, Stanton, & Feigelman,2000). Parental monitoring knowledge refers to parents’awareness of their child’s behaviors or peer associations,such as knowing their child’s peers and what their childdoes in his/her free time. This knowledge is often basedon parental monitoring behaviors, a communicative processwhere parents actively seek information about their child’sbehaviors, ask where he/she is going, or tell him/her whento be home (Li et al., 2000). Parental monitoring knowl-edge and behaviors may decrease the likelihood that strainedyouth will use substances to deal with acculturation stressresulting from perceived discrimination. Parents who engagein parental monitoring knowledge and behaviors are likelyto make obtaining substance use more difficult for their off-spring. If youth seek a way to escape from their strain,having parents who actively ask and know of their off-springs’ whereabouts, peers, and activities may discourageyouth from perceiving substance use as an easily accessi-ble solution. In contrast, low levels of parental monitoringknowledge and behaviors have been found to be associ-ated with an increase in delinquent peers, which increasesthe likelihood that substances are more easily accessible(Laird, Criss, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 2008). In short, ado-lescents with low levels of parental monitoring knowledgeand behaviors may be more likely to use ATOD to escapetheir strain.

Parent–Child Closeness

Parent–child closeness is also likely to limit the potentialimpact of acculturation stress on ATOD use caused by per-ceived discrimination (Rumbaut & Portes, 2001). Parentswho share a close relationship with their offspring are likelyto provide support by “being there” for their children andto express warmth, attention, and understanding (Golish,2000). Past research on parent–child closeness documentedthat youth are less likely to engage in problematic behav-iors as they feel closer to a parent (Dickerson & Crase,2005), a result also found among Latina/o adolescents(Mogro-Wilson, 2008). Parent–child closeness in the formof understanding may offer youth a sense of security, thusmitigating the effect of acculturation stress on ATOD use.

Parent Anti-ATOD Injunctive Norms

A final important parent factor to consider comprises theattitudes and beliefs that parents hold regarding ATOD use.These attitudes and beliefs are called injunctive norms andare rooted in culturally grounded views of acceptable behav-ior (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993). Injunctive normsrepresent perceptions of how individuals should behave, andthey are motivated by the belief that engaging in a particularaction (e.g., ATOD use) has social rewards or punishments(Elek, Miller-Day, & Hecht, 2006). Youth who hold par-ent anti-ATOD injunctive norms believe their parents would

find engaging in substance use unacceptable, and these youthare less likely to use ATOD (Elek et al., 2006). In contrast,youth are more likely to report ATOD use if they believetheir parents hold pro-ATOD norms (Brody, Ge, Katz, &Arias, 2000). Strained Latina/o adolescents may be lesslikely to use ATOD to alleviate their acculturation stress ifthey perceive such behaviors will induce disapproval fromtheir parents. Brezina (1996) suggested that using problembehaviors to cope with strain may be appealing only whenit is not accompanied by additional negative consequencessuch as punishment and scorn. The perception that parentswill find substance use an unacceptable behavior is likely todiscourage strained adolescents from engaging in ATOD asa coping mechanism.

This study argues that the likelihood that Latina/o youthuse substances as a way to cope with their acculturationstress from perceived discrimination depends on the degreeto which these youth communicate with a parent aboutalcohol, perceive that a parent monitors and knows of theadolescent child’s peers and activities, establish a close rela-tionship with a parent, and believe that a parent would beangry if they used ATOD. Thus, it was hypothesized that:

H2: Among Latina/o youth, targeted parent–child com-munication about alcohol, parental monitoring knowl-edge, parental monitoring behaviors, parent–childcloseness, and parent anti-ATOD injunctive norms actas moderators that attenuate the effects of accultura-tion stress on ATOD use.

PEER INFLUENCES AS PROTECTIVE FACTORS

In addition to parents as a resource that strained Latina/oyouth may draw upon, GST (Agnew, 1992) suggests thatyouth also may rely on their peers to deal with theirstrain. Peers may buffer the effect of acculturation stresson ATOD use by providing social support to strained youth(DeGarmo & Martinez, 2006). Conversely, peers who them-selves engage in ATOD use or who find such behavioracceptable may negatively influence strained youth by pro-viding opportunities for ATOD use, reinforcing the behavior,or presenting ATOD use as a comforting solution. Althoughmany peer variables could be examined, this study focuseson peer injunctive and descriptive norms regarding ATODuse, which past studies found to strongly impact ATOD usebehaviors (Elek et al., 2006; Kam, Matsunaga, Hecht, &Ndiaye, 2009).

Friend Anti-ATOD Injunctive Norms

Relationships with peers emerge during early adolescence;thus, adolescents’ perceptions of what peers deem accept-able and, in particular, their views of substance use accept-ability (i.e., friend anti-ATOD injunctive norms) are also

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION AS A RISK FACTOR 115

expected to influence the relation between acculturationstress and ATOD use (Kam et al., 2009). Elek et al. (2006)documented that the more adolescents in their study believedtheir peers would react negatively to engaging in substanceuse, the less likely these adolescents were to engage in suchbehavior. For Latina/o youth experiencing acculturationstress from perceived discrimination, friends’ disapprovalof ATOD use is likely to weigh heavily on substance usedecisions and, more importantly for the current study, to dis-courage substance use as a coping mechanism in response toacculturation stress. If strained youth consider partaking insubstance use, the perception that their friends disapprove ofsuch behavior is likely to deter them from engaging in sub-stance use. These effects also may result from the perceptionof a broader notion of normative behavior called descriptivenorms.

Anti-ATOD Peer Descriptive Norms

Youth with anti-ATOD descriptive norms believe that theprevalence of substance use among their peers is low (Kamet al., 2009) and are less likely to use substances them-selves (Elek et al., 2006). In this study, it is postulated thatwhen Latina/o youth experience acculturation stress as theyencounter perceived discrimination, ATOD use is less likelyto appear appealing if these youth believe few peers engagein such behavior. Agnew (1992) suggested that strainedyouth are at greater risk of turning to problem behaviorswhen they associate with delinquent peers because they tendto perceive such behavior as acceptable. Also, associatingwith delinquent peers often makes such behaviors easy toparticipate in when, for instance, such peers have accessto substance use (Aseltine et al., 2000). Strained youth aremore likely to turn to ATOD use if they believe most of theirpeers participate in such behaviors. Based on GST and pastresearch on peer influences, the following hypothesis was setforth:

H3: Among Latina/o youth, peer anti-ATOD injunctiveand descriptive norms act as moderators that attenuatethe effects of acculturation stress on ATOD use.

METHOD

Participants

This study includes data primarily from Waves 4, 5, and 6of a larger study intended to evaluate a National Instituteon Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded school-based substance useprevention program. Latina/o seventh- and eighth-grade stu-dents (n = 728) from 23 public middle schools in Phoenix,AZ, provided self-report longitudinal data. Latina/o youthcomprised 80% of the overall sample (n = 906) at the fourthwave. Because the distribution among other ethnic groupswas too small to permit statistical comparisons, this study

was limited to a sample of Latina/o youth. At the fourthwave, 62% of these adolescents self-identified as MexicanAmerican, 31% as Mexican, and 7% as Other Latina/o. InWave 4, 728 Latina/o youth completed the survey, 628 inWave 5, and 546 in Wave 6. Waves 4 through 6 were col-lected over a 2-year period, with each wave of data collectedonce per school semester. The Latina/o youth at Wave 4reported an average age of 12.3 years (SD = .58), with54% self-identifying as female. Among the Latina/o youthat Wave 4, 74% of the youth were born in the United Statesand 26% were born in Mexico. In contrast, 71% reportedthat their mother was born in Mexico (24% in the UnitedStates, 2% in another country, and 3% did not know) and72% reported that their father was born in Mexico (19% inthe United States, 2% in another country, and 6% did notknow). Lastly, 64% of the Latina/o youth had lived in theUnited States for their entire life, 13% more than 10 years,12% between 6 and 10 years, and 11% between 1 and 5years.

Procedure

At each wave, students completed surveys in homeroom, sci-ence, or health classes, while a trained proctor was present.Survey completion took approximately 45 minutes. Parentsprovided informed consent and students provided informedassent before filling out the surveys. Because a substan-tial proportion of the students were of Latina/o decent, oneside of the survey was in English and the other side wasin Spanish. Rogler’s (1989) method of back-translation wasused, where project personnel translated the English versionof the survey into Spanish and then translated the Spanishversion back into English. Only 4% of the Latina/o studentscompleted the survey in Spanish at Wave 4, a percentage toosmall to analyze separately.

Measures

Perceived discrimination was measured at Wave 4.Acculturation stress, targeted parent–child communicationabout alcohol, parental monitoring knowledge, parentalmonitoring behaviors, parent–child closeness, parent anti-ATOD injunctive norms, friend anti-ATOD injunctivenorms, and anti-ATOD descriptive norms were measured atWave 5. The outcome variable, last-30-days ATOD use, wasmeasured at Wave 6. Items were modified to make themage appropriate as needed, and subsets of scales were useddue to time constraints imposed by the school setting. Thescales were pilot tested and examined for readability leveland found to be appropriate for the students (see Table 1 forsummary statistics and reliabilities).

Perceived discrimination. Five items were createdbased on Mena, Padilla, and Maldonado (1987), Romero and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

116 KAM AND CLEVELAND

TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics, Bivariate Correlations, and Reliabilities for Perceived Discrimination, Acculturation Stress, ATOD Use,

Parent Factors, and Peer Factors

Variable M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

1. DISC 1.50 .65 .892. ASTRE 1.18 .34 .29∗∗ .803. ATOD 1.55 1.0 .11∗ .15∗∗ .734. TALC 3.58 1.1 −.18∗∗ −.13∗∗ −.15∗∗ .905. MONK 3.19 .83 −.12∗∗ −.10∗ −.21∗∗ .30∗∗ .866. MONB 3.33 .82 −.10∗ −.12∗∗ −.15∗∗ .26∗∗ .63∗∗ .717. CLOSE 3.25 .71 −.14∗∗ −.12∗∗ −.12∗ .36∗∗ .45∗∗ .31∗∗ .888. PNORM 3.61 .69 −.13∗∗ −.11∗ −.19∗∗ .22∗∗ .26∗∗ .22∗∗ .26∗∗ .839. FNORM 3.89 1.2 −.04 −.12∗∗ −.32∗∗ .24∗∗ .28∗∗ .19∗∗ .16∗∗ .28∗∗ .9010. DESC 2.99 .78 −.02 −.14∗∗ −.39∗∗ .19∗∗ .25∗∗ .19∗∗ .12∗∗ .17∗∗ .49∗∗ .84

Note. Total n = 728, ∗∗p < .01, ∗p < .05 (two-tailed). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are provided in the diagonal. DISC = perceived discrimination(1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree), ASTRE = acculturation stress (1 = not a problem to 3 = big problem), ATOD = alcohol, tobacco, andother drug use (1 = disagree a lot to 5 = agree a lot), TALC = targeted parent–child communication about alcohol, MONK = parental monitoringknowledge (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree), MONB = parental monitoring behaviors (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree),CLOSE = parent–child closeness (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree), PNORM = parent anti-ATOD injunctive norms (1 = not at all angryto 4 = very angry), FNORM = friend anti-ATOD injunctive norms (1 = very positively to 5 = very negatively), DESC = anti-ATOD peer descriptivenorms (1 = all or most to 4 = hardly any or none).

Roberts (2003), and Vinokurov, Trickett, and Birman (2002)to measure perceived discrimination. Students respondedusing a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = stronglyagree). The introduction asked, “Thinking about your ethnicgroup (race or culture), do you agree or disagree with thefollowing?” Sample items included: “Kids at school say badthings or make jokes about me because of my ethnic group”and “Kids my age exclude me from their activities or gamesbecause my ethnic group is different.”

Acculturation stress. Five items were created basedon Gil, Vega, and Dimas (1994), Mena et al. (1987), Romeroand Roberts (2003), and Vinokurov et al. (2002). The intro-duction stated, “Are the following situations a problem foryou?” and responded to items using a 3-point scale (1 =not a problem to 3 = big problem). Sample items included“I don’t feel at home here in the United States” and “I amembarrassed by the way I speak English.”

To examine the distinction between perceived discrim-ination and acculturation stress, confirmatory factor anal-yses (CFAs) were performed using Mplus 5.1 (Muthén &Muthén, 2007). First, a two-factor CFA was conducted withthe perceived discrimination and acculturation stress itemsloaded onto their corresponding factors. This two-factorCFA fit the data well: (χ2 [34] = 58.77, p = <.05; loglikeli-hood = −3038.54, scaling correction factor = 2.32, k = 31;RMSEA [root mean square error of approximation] = 0.03,90% confidence interval [CI] = .02, .05; CFI [comparativefit index] =.98; SRMR [standardized root mean squareresidual] = .03). Second, to examine the possibility thatperceived discrimination and acculturation stress were notdistinct, a one-factor CFA model was examined: (χ2 [35]= 480.09, p = <.05; loglikelihood = −3391.36, scalingcorrection factor = 2.36, k = 30; RMSEA = 0.13, 90%CI = .12, .14; CFI =.72; SRMR = .15). Based on the −2

loglikelihood difference test provided on the Mplus web-site (Mplus, 2009), the chi-square difference test (χ2

diff[1] =630.04, p < .05) revealed that the two-factor model signif-icantly improved the model fit, thereby providing supportfor the distinction between perceived discrimination andacculturation stress.

Targeted parent–child communication about alco-hol. Because of time constraints and survey-length limita-tions imposed by the school setting and the age group, threeitems were taken from a nine-item scale (Miller-Day & Kam,2010; Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004). The scale asked students,“How much do you agree with the following for at least oneof your parents?” to which students responded using a 5-point scale (1 = disagree a lot and 5 = agree a lot). Theitems were: “At least one of my parents . . .” “. . . has talkedto me about how to handle offers of alcoholic drinks” and “.. . has warned me about the dangers of drinking alcohol.”

Parental monitoring knowledge. Three modifieditems from Kerr and Stattin (2000) and Stattin and Kerr(2000) were used based on a 4-point scale (1= stronglydisagree to 4 = strongly agree). The scale asked students,“How often does your mom or dad . . .” to which studentsresponded to three items, “. . . know what you do with yourfree time?,” “usually know what you do after school?,” and“. . . know what friends you spend your free time with?”

Parental monitoring behaviors. Two modified itemswere used from Kerr and Stattin (2000) and Stattin and Kerr(2000), using a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 =strongly agree). The items were: “How often does your momor dad ask where you are going when you leave the house?”and “How often does your mom or dad tell you what time tobe home?”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION AS A RISK FACTOR 117

Parent–child closeness. Four items were used basedon a 4-point scale (1= strongly disagree to 4 = stronglyagree). The items were modified from the ParentalSocioemotional Support for Adolescents Scale (Upchurch,Aneshensel, Sucoff, & Levy-Storms, 1999). Items included“My mom or my dad . . .” to which students responded, “. . .really understands me” and “. . . lets me know she (or he)cares about me.”

Parent anti-ATOD injunctive norms. Three itemsfrom Hansen and Graham (1991) were used based on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all angry to 4 = very angry). Youthwere asked, “How angry would your parents be if they foundout you:” and they responded to “. . . drank alcohol?” “. . .smoked cigarettes?” and “. . . smoked marijuana?”

Friend anti-ATOD injunctive norms. Studentsresponded to three items taken from Hansen and Graham(1991). Items included, “How would your best friend reactif you . . .” “. . . got drunk?,” “. . . smoked marijuana?,” and“smoked cigarettes?” Students used a 5-point scale (1 =very positively to 5 = very negatively).

Anti-ATOD descriptive norms. Students responded tofour items from Hansen and Graham (1991) using a 4-pointscale (1 = all or most to 4 = hardly any or none). Sampleitems were: “About how many kids in your school wouldyou guess have used alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana at leastonce?” and “Now think about the friends you hang out with.How many do you think use alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuanaregularly?”

Last-30-days ATOD use. Students reported theamount and frequency of using alcohol, cigarettes, and mar-ijuana within the last 30 days from completing the surveyusing three items from Graham et al. (1984). Sample itemswere “How many drinks of alcohol have you had in the last30 days?” and “How many cigarettes have you smoked in thelast 30 days?” Students used a 7-point scale to report alcoholconsumption (1 = none to 7 = more than 30), cigarette use(1 = none to 7 = more than 20 cigarettes), and marijuanahits (1 = none to 7 = more than 40 hits).

ANALYSIS SUMMARY

The hypotheses were tested in Mplus 5.1, using structuralequation modeling (SEM). To account for the data’s miss-ingness, listwise deletion often results in a substantial lossof power and biased parameter estimates; therefore, thefull information maximum likelihood method (FIML) wasused. FIML is a method conducted in a single analysis byusing students’ raw data and incomplete cases to calcu-late the parameter estimates using the observed informationmatrix to calculate the standard errors (Graham, Cumsille,& Elek-Fisk, 2003).

With respect to the data distribution, perceived dis-crimination, acculturation stress, ATOD use, parent-basedresources, and peer-based resources were skewed, rangingfrom −5.09 to 43.0. The natural log transformation onlyreduced the skewness for acculturation stress, ATOD use,friend anti-ATOD injunctive norms, and anti-ATOD descrip-tive norms. Hence, the natural log transformation was usedfor these variables, along with the maximum likelihoodestimator with robust standard errors (MLR) that is robustagainst nonnormally distributed data (L. K. Muthén, per-sonal communication, May 25, 2009; Muthén & Muthén,2007).

In addition to handling the data’s missingness and skew-ness, the SEM analyses controlled for prior ATOD use atWave 3 and Wave 4 by specifying paths from these vari-ables to last-30-days ATOD use at Wave 6. Latina/o youths’country of origin, their mother’s and father’s country of ori-gin, and the length of time these Latina/o youths lived inthe United States were included as additional covariates.The analyses also accounted for the multilevel-structureddata (i.e., students nested within schools), given that theMexican-heritage youth in this study attended one of 23participating schools. Intraclass correlations (ICC) for eachvariable determined the amount of variance that could beattributed to school-level differences. All but one of the val-ues were less than 0.03, with one being 0.05. MultilevelSEM models often result in large and complex models,requiring a large and complicated likelihood function thatoften leads to convergence problems with the FIML estima-tion (Hox, 2002). The strongest contributing factors to thisproblem are an inadequate sample size at the group level andrelatively low ICC values (Hox & Maas, 2001). This study’sdata with only 23 schools and low ICC values reflectedthis situation. Consequently, the multilevel-structured datawas accounted for by using TYPE = COMPLEX, whichcalculates the standard errors and a chi-square test whileconsidering the non-independence of observations (Muthén& Muthén, 2007).

Finally, the data come from a culturally grounded sub-stance use prevention program in which 23 schools were ran-domly assigned to three conditions: acculturation enhance-ment (AE), multicultural (MC), and control. Both the AEand MC conditions included lessons and videos rooted inMexican, White, and Black cultures, promoting anti-ATODnorms, refusal efficacy, decision-making skills, and resis-tance skills (Gosi, Marsiglia, & Hecht, 2002). The AEand MC conditions differed, with the AE condition pro-moting ethnic identification, ethnic pride, cultural diversity,and bilingualism. In contrast, the MC condition focusedon taking responsibility for one’s decisions. The controlcondition used other substance-use-related programs out-side this project. To address potential intervention effects, amultigroup analysis was conducted to examine whether themediation model significantly differed based on conditions.The chi-square difference test (χ2

diff [34] = 41.27, p = .19)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

118 KAM AND CLEVELAND

between the restricted and unrestricted models was not sig-nificant; hence, neither condition exhibited a significanteffect.

RESULTS

When testing the three proposed hypotheses, a mediationmodel was first examined, followed by seven separate mod-els examining each parent- and peer-based resource as apotential moderator. The following sections describe theresults of the SEM models.

H1: Testing a Mediation Model

The first hypothesis posited that acculturation stress medi-ates the effects of perceived discrimination on ATOD usesuch that (1) perceived discrimination is positively associ-ated with acculturation stress, and (2) acculturation stress ispositively associated with ATOD use. To test this hypothe-sis, a mediation model was examined. Paths were estimatedfrom perceived discrimination (X) to acculturation stress (M;path a), acculturation stress to last-30-days ATOD use (Y;path b), and perceived discrimination to last-30-days ATODuse (path c’).

The mediation model (see Figure 1) fit the data well:(χ2 [202] = 403.59, p = <.05; loglikelihood = −7198.35,scaling correction factor = 2.47, k = 83; RMSEA = 0.04,90% CI = .03, .04; CFI =.95; SRMR = .05). Perceiveddiscrimination was positively associated with acculturationstress (standardized β =.30, SE = .08, z = 3.95, p <

.05), acculturation stress was positively associated with last-30-days ATOD use (standardized β =.14, SE =.04, z =3.33, p < .05), and perceived discrimination was not signifi-cantly associated with last-30-days ATOD use (standardizedβ =.06, SE =.05, z = 1.18, p =.24). In regard to test-ing the mediation model, the bootstrapping procedure isideal (Preacher & Hayes, 2008); however, Mplus does notallow for bootstrapping with TYPE = COMPLEX (codeused to control for the multilevel-structured data). Thus,PRODCLIN (MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, & Lockwood,2007) was used to examine the indirect effect of perceiveddiscrimination on ATOD use through acculturation stress.PRODCLIN handles the nonnormality in the product ofcoefficients’ distribution and computes asymmetric confi-dence intervals (Research in Prevention Laboratory, 2006).Based on this program, perceived discrimination had a sig-nificant indirect effect on last-30-days ATOD use throughacculturation stress (95% asymmetric CI = .01, .08), therebysupporting the hypothesis.

The model explained 15% of the variance in accultura-tion stress and 48% of the variance in last-30-days ATODuse. These values correspond to a small effect size for accul-turation stress and a large effect size for last-30-days ATODuse (cf. Cohen, 1988). Nevertheless, it is important to notethat the covariates (e.g., prior ATOD use and accultura-tion variables) accounted for a substantial portion of thevariances. The mediation model was reexamined excludingall covariates, and this model explained 11% of the vari-ance in acculturation stress and 4% in last-30-days ATODuse. These values correspond to small effect sizes based onCohen (1988).

R2 = .15

Last-30-DaysATOD Use (Y)

D4

D1

D2

.63 .70 .76 .66 .61

A1

A3

A2

.84

.59

.66

Wave 5

Wave 6 Wave 4

S5S4S3S2S1

.30* . 14* R2 = .48

PerceivedDiscrimination

(X)

D3

. 06

D5

.85

.85

.78

.91

.60

AcculturationStress (M)

FIGURE 1 A mediation model of perceived discrimination’s indirect effect on ATOD use.

Note. To control for acculturation variables, paths were examined from these variables to perceived discrimination, acculturation stress, and last-30-daysATOD use. Prior ATOD use at Wave 3 and Wave 4 also were controlled for by examining paths from these variables to last-30-days ATOD use at Wave 6.These covariates contributed to the variance explained by the model. The multilevel-structured data was controlled for when testing this model (χ2 [202] =403.59, p = < .05; RMSEA = 0.04, 90% CI = .03, .04; CFI = .95; SRMR = .05). Path coefficients are completely standardized. All significant (p < .05)paths are highlighted by boldface and marked by asterisks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION AS A RISK FACTOR 119

H2: Parent–Child Communication, Relationship, andNorm Factors as Moderators

The second hypothesis postulated that parent–child com-munication, relationship, and norm resources would act asmoderators to attenuate the effects of acculturation stresson ATOD use. Separate SEM analyses were conducted byadding each parent factor as a latent variable in the modeland creating a new interaction latent variable whose indi-cators were the cross-products of acculturation stress andthe specific parent factor. The path coefficient from theinteraction latent factor to last-30-days ATOD use was thenexamined to determine significant moderation (for an exam-ple, see Figure 2). When examining latent interactions,Mplus uses an algorithm integration feature, which onlyyields the loglikelihood, a scaling correction factor, Akaikeinformation criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion(BIC), and sample-size adjusted BIC values. These val-ues are reported in Table 2 for the mediation-only model,as well as for each moderated mediation model. The AICvalues for each moderated mediation model were lowerthan the mediation-only model, suggesting that these latentinteraction models fit the data better. Nevertheless, becausethe mediation model (without latent interactions) is nestedwithin each model that contains a latent interaction, the chi-square difference test was conducted. This test comparedthe mediation model without the latent interaction (nested

model) to each model with a latent interaction (compar-ison model). Based on these tests, each latent moderatedmediation model significantly improved the model fit.

A deeper inspection into the moderated mediation modelsrevealed that none of the parent factors significantly inter-acted with acculturation stress to predict last-30-days ATODuse. The second hypothesis was not supported. Amongthe five parent-based resources, only parent–child closenesshad a significant main effect on last-30-days ATOD use(unstandardized β = −.05, SE =.02, z = −2.29, p < .05).Regardless of acculturation stress, the more Latina/o youthexperienced parent–child closeness, the less likely they wereto use ATOD. Acculturation stress continued to operate as asignificant mediator in each of the latent interaction models.

H3: Peer Norm Factors as Moderators

The third hypothesis proposed that peer norm factors wouldact as moderators to attenuate acculturation stress’s effecton ATOD use. Similar to H2, separate SEM analyses wereconducted to determine whether friend anti-ATOD injunc-tive norms and anti-ATOD descriptive norms interactedwith acculturation stress to predict decreases in substanceuse. Again, each model included the specific peer factoras a latent variable and an interaction latent variable thatwas indicated by the cross-product terms of acculturation

ASTRESS(M)

ATOD6(Y)

TALC(W)

TALC*ASTRESS

(MW)

Mother’sNativity

(covariate)

Father’sNativity

(covariate)

Youth’sNativity

(covariate)

Time Spentin the U.S.(covariate)

ATOD3(Controlling for

prior use)

ATOD4(Controlling for

prior use)

DISC(X)

FIGURE 2 An example of a latent moderated mediation model with targeted parent–child communication as a potential moderator.

Note: DISC = perceived discrimination, ASTRESS = acculturation stress, ATOD6 = alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use at wave 6, TALC = targeted parent–child communication about alcohol, ATOD3 = alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use at Wave 3, ATOD4 = alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use at Wave 4.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

120 KAM AND CLEVELAND

TABLE 2Fit Statistics and Chi-Square Differences for the Mediation Model and the Seven Moderated Mediation Models

Moderator LoglikelihoodScaling

Correction Factor AIC BIC Adjusted BICNumber ofParameters χ2

diff, p-value

Mediation model −7198.35 2.47 14,562.70 14,943.69 14,680.14 83Targeted parent–child

communication−6657.74 2.52 13,493.49 13,896.60 13,614.02 89 χ2

diff(6) = 325.19, p < .05

Parental monitoringknowledge

−6446.90 2.39 13,071.79 13,474.91 13,192.32 89 χ2diff(6) = 1132.15, p < .05

Parental monitoringbehaviors

−5921.57 2.42 12,015.13 12,404.66 12,131.60 86 χ2diff(3) = 2025.03, p < .05

Parent–child closeness −6592.50 2.47 13,368.99 13,785.70 13,493.59 92 χ2diff(9) = 485.52, p < .05

Parent anti-ATODinjunctive norms

−6138.06 2.50 12,454.11 12,857.23 12,574.64 89 χ2diff(6) = 710.65, p < .05

Friend anti-ATODinjunctive norms

−4997.69 2.71 10,173.39 10,576.51 10,293.92 89 χ2diff(6) = 725.15, p < .05

Anti-ATOD peerdescriptive norms

−5267.15 2.51 10,718.29 11,135.00 10,842.88 92 χ2diff(9) = 1325.10, p < .05

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

stress and the peer factor. Chi-square difference tests com-pared these latent moderated mediation models (comparisonmodels) to the mediation model without latent interactions(nested model). The comparison models that included alatent interaction significantly improved the model fit (seeTable 2).

Neither of these peer factors were significant moderators;thus, the third hypothesis was not supported. Yet, friend anti-ATOD injunctive norms (unstandardized β = −.17, SE =.07, z = −2.38, p < .05) and anti-ATOD descriptive norms(unstandardized β = −.37, SE = .10, z = −3.57, p < .05)each had a significant main effect on last-30-days ATOD use.As Latina/o youth perceived a friend would react negativelyif they used substances, then they were less likely to useATOD. Similarly, these youth were less likely to use ATODas they perceived fewer peers at school used substances.Again, acculturation stress was a significant mediator in eachpeer-based latent interaction model. Despite the nonsignif-icant interactions across all the parent and peer variables,each model with a latent interaction significantly improvedthe model fit. These comparison models most likely fit thedata better than the nested model because each comparisonmodel accounted for the main effect of its correspondingparent and peer variable.

DISCUSSION

Based on general strain theory, this study found thatacculturation stress mediated the effect of perceiveddiscrimination on ATOD use among Latino/o adolescents.The results did not provide support for parent and peercommunication, relationship, and norm resources as signif-icant moderators; however, parent–child closeness, friendanti-ATOD injunctive norms, and anti-ATOD descriptivenorms exhibited main effects on ATOD use in their expecteddirections. These findings have implications for cultur-ally grounded substance use research, where preventionists

would be advised to incorporate parent(s) and peer(s) inLatina/o based programs.

Testing a Mediation Model Based on GeneralStrain Theory

This study contributes to past research linking perceived dis-crimination with poor mental health (e.g., Araújo & Borrell,2006; DeGarmo & Martinez, 2006) but goes a step furtherto demonstrate perceived discrimination’s impact on actualhealth-related behaviors. In addition, this study’s findingsprovide a theoretical contribution to GST. Proponents ofthis theory argue that individuals who experience a noxiousstimulus (e.g., perceived discrimination) develop negativepsychological reactions and are likely to cope by turningto problem behaviors (e.g., ATOD use; cf. Agnew, 1992).Latina/o youth in this study developed more acculturationstress as they experienced perceived discrimination and as aresult were more likely to use substances. Thus, substanceuse may be a way for Latina/o youth to cope with theiracculturation stress stemming from perceived discrimina-tion. Further, this study extends past research (e.g., Pérezet al., 2008) that has examined anger as an emotionalresponse to strain by considering another negative psycho-logical reaction (i.e., acculturation stress) that is relevantto culturally based perceived discrimination. Finally, gen-eral strain theorists argue that coping strategies may actas a protective factor; therefore, it was hypothesized thatparent- and peer-based communication, relationship, andnorm resources would play this buffering role.

Parent and Peer Resources as Moderators

In this study, none of the parent or peer factors significantlyinteracted with acculturation stress to predict substance use.Past research (e.g., Elek et al., 2006; Miller-Day & Kam,2010) found support for parents and peers as protective fac-tors directly against substance use, yet no evidence was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION AS A RISK FACTOR 121

found that they mitigate the negative effects of accultura-tion stress on substance use. This finding is curious in lightof previous research.

One explanation for the non-significant interactions maylie within the content of the parent- and peer-based mea-sures. None of the parent or peer measures specificallyreferred to perceived discrimination but instead mainlyfocused on ATOD use. This area of research would benefitfrom investigating the types of supportive and comfort-ing messages that parents and peers provide to youth whochoose to disclose information about their discriminationexperiences. Parents and peers may provide suggestionsfor effectively dealing with Latina/o youths’ perceived dis-crimination and acculturation stress, thereby decreasing thelikelihood that they will engage in ATOD use. The non-significant interactions may be attributed to the exclusionof measures capturing discussions specifically regardingperceived discrimination.

As a coping strategy, Latina/o youth also may benefitfrom the ethnic/racial socialization that parents and peersprovide for Latina/o youth over time. Many minority par-ents protect their offspring from perceived discriminationby directly addressing it early in life through ethnic/racialsocialization processes (Gibbons et al., 2004). Ethnic social-ization refers to parents and peers informing and promotingethnic identification, and racial socialization refers to par-ents or peers informing and preparing youth about issuesregarding race and racism, which may include teaching theseyouth how to interact with others who are within and outsideof their ethnic/racial group (Barr & Neville, 2008). AmongAfrican American adolescents, Neblett et al. (2008) foundthat high positive racial socialization messages bufferedagainst perceived discrimination’s effects on stress and prob-lem behaviors. The Neblett et al. study did not consider peersocialization efforts or Mexican-heritage youth; however,their study provided evidence for racial socialization as apotential protective factor against perceived discrimination.Research might benefit from first describing ethnic/racialsocialization messages that Latina/o youth receive fromtheir parents and peers and then examining whether theyplay a buffering role.

An additional explanation for the nonsignificant parentand peer interactions is rooted in theoretical postulationsof general strain theorists when explaining possible copingstrategies. In addition to parent and peer networks, Agnew(1992) suggested that youth may use cognitive adjustmentssuch as convincing themselves that the acculturation stressfrom perceived discrimination is not significant (i.e., that itis bearable) or that they deserve to be discriminated against.Further, youth may alter their goals, such as wanting to beaccepted by certain peers, may lower their standards, ormay compare themselves to others with worse treatment.Another example may be developing a strong sense of eth-nic identification. In particular, ethnic identification refers

to how individuals relate to their own ethnic group rela-tive to other ethnic groups and the extent to which theyfeel connected with their ethnic group (Donthu & Cherian,1992). Latina/o youth who experience perceived discrim-ination against their ethnic group may be more resilientto such acts when having a strong sense of pride in theirown ethnic heritage. Such cognitive adjustments may beresources that prevention researchers may promote in theirprograms.

Finally, a methodological explanation for the nonsignif-icant interactions may lie in the lack of variation in thedata. This study’s Latina/o sample reported low mean levelsof perceived discrimination, acculturation stress, and last-30-days ATOD use. In a Latina/o sample reporting greatervariation in these measures, it is possible that the parent andpeer factors would significantly interact with acculturationstress to predict ATOD use. The low levels of perceived dis-crimination and acculturation stress are likely a result ofLatina/o youth comprising the majority at the 23 schools,forming 80% of the total sample at Wave 4. Thus, culturallybased perceived discrimination and resulting acculturationstress are less likely to be experienced when these youthform the majority at school. A sample of older Latina/oyouth in a setting where they are not the majority shouldbe considered to determine whether parent and peer rela-tionship factors interact with acculturation stress to decreaseATOD use.

The low levels of ATOD use may be a result of this sam-ple’s age and may also account for the small effect sizes.In particular, studies demonstrate that onset of ATOD usegenerally occurs between the grades of seventh through10th grades (Johnston et al., 2007). Thus, the transitionfrom middle school to high school represents an impor-tant stage in adolescent development. The current sampleincluded reports of past-30-day use among Latina/o youthwho ranged from seventh to eighth grades. Future studiesthat follow such youth into high school and that includemeasures of lifetime use may are warranted. Despite thisstudy’s small effect sizes, they are similar to effects foundin past studies on adolescent substance use (Cleveland,Gibbons, Gerrard, Pomery, & Brody, 2005; Elek et al. 2006).Moreover, in situations where the research involves greatconsequences such as early substance use among youth,small effect sizes should not be discounted (Prentice &Miller, 1992).

Practical Implications

Despite the nonsignificant interactions, parent–child close-ness, friend anti-ATOD injunctive norms, and anti-ATODdescriptive norms were negatively associated with ATODuse. Among the five parent-based resources, only parent–child closeness had a significant main effect on ATODuse, whereas both peer-based resources had a significant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

122 KAM AND CLEVELAND

main effect. This finding may suggest that familial and peernetworks are not equal in their degree of influence.

Thornberry (1987) developed interactional theory, inwhich he argued that the parents’ influence decreases asyouth transition into middle adolescence, when school andpeers become more salient in their lives. A past studyrevealed that parental attachment such as family involve-ment and perceived closeness exhibited strong effects onadolescents’ drug use during early and middle adoles-cence (Jang, 2002). This result may explain why the cur-rent study found a significant negative association betweenparent–child closeness and ATOD use for Latina/o mid-dle school students, but not for the other parent-basedresources. Perhaps parent–child closeness and peer-relatednorms are more influential during middle adolescence andshould be emphasized in culturally grounded substanceuse prevention programs. Their influence, however, maychange over time, and other resources may need more pro-moting to meet these Latina/o adolescents’ developmentalneeds.

Given that Latina/o adolescents are at risk for engagingin substance use when they experience perceived discrim-ination, efforts should be made to prevent and decreaseperceived discrimination and acculturation stress. First, pro-moting an appreciation for cultural diversity throughout thecommunity, neighborhoods, and schools would help reduceperceived discrimination and acculturation stress. Additionalefforts should be made to investigate effective coping strate-gies that Latina/o adolescents can use. Prevention programsshould incorporate parents and peers to show them how tohandle their own experiences with perceived discriminationand acculturation stress and how to help others (e.g., theiroffspring or peers).

Despite the low levels of perceived discrimination, accul-turation stress, and ATOD use, these Latina/o adolescentsshould not be ignored. In a more heterogeneous settingwhere Latina/o adolescents are the minority, it is possi-ble that perceived discrimination would exhibit an evenstronger effect on ATOD use. Nevertheless, in homoge-neous schools, within-ethnic discrimination may occur.Discrimination transpires for a number of reasons, such aslow socioeconomic status (SES), generation status, docu-mented versus undocumented immigration, skin tone, andlinguistic skills even within a group. This study’s resultsshow the harmful effect of perceived discrimination evenamong a sample of Latina/o youth in a homogeneous schoolsetting.

Limitations and Future Research

This study extends the literature on parent and peer fac-tors as buffers against the effects of acculturation stress onATOD use among Latina/o youth; however, several lim-itations exist. First, parents’ and peers’ perspectives were

not obtained in this study. Based on a systems theory per-spective (e.g., Yerby, 1995), family members and peersinfluence each other’s psychological and behavioral expe-riences. Gibbons et al. (2004) found that parents’ reportsof perceived discrimination were positively associated withtheir children’s reports of perceived discrimination. It isalso possible that peers’ perceived discrimination predictsyouth’s perceived discrimination and their subsequent reac-tions to this negative experience. Further investigation candetermine how parents-to-offspring and peers-to-peers influ-ence each other’s perceived discrimination experiences andhow they cope with such experiences.

In addition, it may be that this study did not adequatelyoperationalize peer influences, nor did it fully capture anti-ATOD descriptive norms. Only friend anti-ATOD injunctivenorms and anti-ATOD descriptive norms were measured toevaluate peers as a potential coping resource. Future researchwould benefit from including peer-to-peer closeness or peer-to-peer conversations about perceived discrimination andalcohol and other substances to determine whether peersprovide additional types of resources that may interact withacculturation stress to predict ATOD use. In addition, thisstudy would benefit from an assessment of parents’ sub-stance use behaviors in the form of parent descriptive norms.Strained Latina/o youth may consider substance use as aneasy way to cope with their acculturation stress from per-ceived discrimination if a parent partakes in such behaviors.

Finally, this study was unable to examine cultural differ-ences regarding the hypotheses. The influence of parents andpeers on Latina/o youth are likely to differ based on vari-ations in cultural backgrounds. Yet Mexican and MexicanAmerican youth comprised 93% of the Latina/o sample,and Latinas/os comprised 80% of the total sample. A lackof variation prevented this study from examining whetherassociations operated uniquely for Latina/o youth.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This study’s application of GST sheds light on the nega-tive effects of perceived discrimination on Latina/o youths’psychological health and health-related behaviors. Giventhe prevalence of perceived discrimination among U.S.Latinas/os, this finding should inspire researchers and prac-titioners to investigate and facilitate the development ofcoping mechanisms that promote healthy ways of managingacculturation stress from perceived discrimination. The fail-ure of this study to find significant interactions among theincluded parent and peer factors suggests a more powerfulmodel for social solutions should be developed. Perceiveddiscrimination can be reduced, but it would be naive tobelieve this phenomenon can be completely eliminated,thus emphasizing the urgency in establishing healthy copingbehaviors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION AS A RISK FACTOR 123

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article was supported by grants R01 DA005629(PI: Michael Hecht) and T32 DA017629 (PI: MarkGreenberg) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse toThe Pennsylvania State University, and by the NationalInstitute on Drug Abuse Center, grant P50 DA100075 (PI:Linda Collins), to The Methodology Center. Its contentsare solely the responsibility of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official views of the NationalInstitutes of Health. The authors would like to thank MichaelHecht and the reviewers for their advice regarding thismanuscript.

REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime anddelinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–87.

Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory:Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delin-quency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 319–361.

Agnew, R., Brezina,T., Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Strain,personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory.Criminology, 40, 43–71.

Ajayi, L. J. (2006). Multiple voices, multiple realities: Self-defined imagesof self among adolescent Hispanic English language learners. Education,126, 468–480.

Araújo, B. Y., & Borrell, L. N. (2006). Understanding the link betweendiscrimination, mental health outcomes, and life chances among Latinos.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 245–266.

Aseltine, R. H., Jr., Gore, S., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger andanxiety, and delinquency: An empirical test of general strain theory.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 256–275.

Barr, S. C., & Neville, H. A. (2008). Examination of the link betweenparental racial socialization messages and racial ideology among Blackcollege students. Journal of Black Psychology, 34, 131–155.

Brezina, T. (1996). Adapting to strain: An examination of delinquent copingresponses. Criminology, 34, 39–60.

Brody, G. H., Ge, X., Katz, J., & Arias, I. (2000). A longitudinal analysis ofinternalization of parental alcohol-use norms and adolescent alcohol use.Applied Developmental Science, 4, 71–79.

Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain the-ory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34,275–306.

Cleveland, M. J., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Pomery, E. A., & Brody, G.H. (2005). The impact of parenting on risk cognitions and risk behavior:A study of mediation and moderation in a panel of African Americanadolescents. Child Development, 76, 900–916.

Codina, G. E., & Montalvo, F. F. (1994). Chicano phenotype and depres-sion. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 296–306.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nded.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Crockett, L. J., Iturbide, M. I., Stone, R. A. T., McGinley, M., Raffaelli,M., & Carlo, G. (2007). Acculturative stress social support, and coping:Relations to psychological adjustment among Mexican American col-lege students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13,347–355.

DeGarmo, D. S., & Martinez, C. R., Jr. (2006). A culturally informedmodel of academic well-being for Latino youth: The importance ofdiscriminatory experiences and social support. Family Relations, 55,267–278.

Dickerson, A. D., & Crase, S. J. (2005). Parent–adolescent relationships:The influence of multi-family therapy group on communication andcloseness. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 45–59.

Donthu, N., & Cherian, J. (1992). Hispanic coupon usage: The impactof strong and weak ethnic identification. Psychology & Marketing, 9,510–510.

Eitle, D., & Turner, R. J. (2003). Stress exposure, race, and young adultmale crime. The Sociological Quarterly, 44, 243–269.

Elek, E., Miller-Day, M., & Hecht, M. L. (2006). Influences of personal,injunctive, and descriptive norms on early adolescent substance use.Journal of Drug Issues, 36, 147–172.

Finch, B. K., & Vega, W. A. (2003). Acculturation stress, social support,and self-related health among Latinos in California. Journal of ImmigrantHealth, 5, 109–117.

Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Cleveland, M. J., Wills, T. A., & Brody, G. H.(2004). Perceived discrimination and substance use in African Americanparents and their children: A panel study. Journal of Personal and SocialPsychology, 86, 517–529.

Gibbons, F. X., Yeh, H.-C., Gerrard, M., Cleveland, M. J., Cutrona, C.,Simons, R. L., & Brody, G. H. (2007). Early experience with racialdiscrimination and conduct disorder as predictors of subsequent druguse: A critical period hypothesis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88,S27–S37.

Gil, A., Vega, W. A., & Dimas, J. (1994). Acculturative stress and personaladjustment among Hispanic adolescent boys. Journal of CommunityPsychology, 22, 43–53.

Golish, T. D. (2000). Changes in closeness between adult children and theirparents: A turning point analysis. Communication Reports, 13, 79–97.

Graham, J. W., Flay, B.R, Johnson, C. A., Hansen, W. B., Grossman,L.M., & Sobel, J. L. (1984). Reliability of self-report measures of druguse in prevention research: Evaluation of the Project SMART question-naire via the test-retest reliability matrix. Journal of Drug Education, 14,175–193.

Graham, J. W., Cumsille, P. E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods ofhandling missing data. In J. A. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.).Research methods in psychology (pp. 87–114). New York: John Wiley& Sons.

Guilamo-Ramos, V., Dittus, P., Jaccard, J., Johansson, M., Bouris, A., &Acosta, N. (2007). Parenting practices among Dominican and PuertoRican mothers. Social Work, 52, 17–30.

Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latinofamilies: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77,1282–1297.

Hansen, W. B., & Graham, J. W. (1991). Preventing alcohol, marijuana,and cigarette use among adolescents: Peer pressure resistance train-ing versus establishing conservative norms. Preventive Medicine, 20,414–430.

Hecht, M. L. (1998). Introduction. In M. L. Hecht (Ed.), Communicatingprejudice (pp. 3–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hox, J. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hox, J. J., & Maas, C. J. (2001). The accuracy of multilevel structural equa-tion modeling with pseudobalanced groups and small samples. StructuralEquation Modeling, 8, 157–174.

Jang, S. J. (2002). The effects of family, school, peers, and attitudes onadolescents’ drug use: Do they vary with age? Justice Quarterly, 19,97–126.

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E.(2007). Monitoring the future: National results on adolescent drug use.Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse, U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services. NIH publication 08-6418.

Kam, J. A., Matsunaga, M., Hecht, M. L., & Ndiaye, K. (2009). Extendingthe theory of planned behavior to predict alcohol, tobacco, and mar-ijuana use among youth of Mexican heritage. Prevention Science, 10,41–53.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13

124 KAM AND CLEVELAND

Kafka, R. R., & London, P. (1991). Communication in relationshipsand adolescent substance use: The influence of parents and friends.Adolescence, 26, 587–598.

Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they knowit, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for areinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366–380.

Laird, R. D., Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E.(2008). Parents’ monitoring knowledge attenuates the link between anti-social friends and adolescent delinquent behavior. Journal of AbnormalChild Psychology, 36, 299–310.

Li, X., Stanton, B., & Feigelman, S. (2000). Impact of perceived parentalmonitoring on adolescent risk behavior over 4 years. Journal ofAdolescent Health, 27, 49–56.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007).Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect:Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384–389.

Mena, F. J., Padilla, A. M., & Maldonado, M. (1987). Acculturative stressand specific coping strategies among immigrant and later generationcollege students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 207–225.

Miller-Day, M., & Dodd, A. H. (2004). Toward a descriptive model ofparent–offspring communication about alcohol and other drugs. Journalof Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 69–91.

Miller-Day, M. A., & Kam, J. A. (2010). More than just openness:Developing and validating a measure of targeted parent–child commu-nication about alcohol. Health Communication, 25, 293–302.

Miranda, A. O., Bilot, J. M., Peluso, P. R., Berman, K., & Van Meek, L. G.(2006). Latino families: The relevance of the connection among accul-turation, family, dynamics, and health for family counseling research andpractice. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples andFamilies, 14, 268–273.

Mogro-Wilson, C. (2008). The influence of parental warmth and control onLatino adolescent alcohol use. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science,30, 89–105.

Moradi, B., & Risco, C. (2006). Perceived discrimination experiences andmental health of Latina/o American persons. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 53, 411–421.

Mplus. (2009). Difference testing using the loglikelihood. Retrieved fromhttp://www.statmodel.com/chidiff.shtml

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). LosAngeles: Muthén & Muthén.

National Survey of Latinos. (2002). National survey of Latinos: Summaryof findings. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, and Menlo Park, CA:Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Neblett, E. W., White, R. L., Ford, K. R., Philip, C. L., Nguyên, H. X., &Sellers, R. M. (2008). Patterns of racial socialization and psychologicaladjustment: Can parental communications about race reduce the impactof racial discrimination? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18,477–515.

Pérez, D. M., Jennings, W. G., & Gover, A. R. (2008). Specifying gen-eral strain theory: An ethnically relevant approach. Deviant Behavior,29, 544–578.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategiesfor assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive.Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164.

Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituationalinfluence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,64, 104–112.

Research in Prevention Laboratory. (2006). Prodclin. Retrieved fromhttp://www.public.asu.edu/~davidpm/ripl/Prodclin

Rogler, L. H. (1989). The meaning of culturally sensitive research in mentalhealth. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 296–303.

Romero, A. J. & Roberts, R. E. (2003). Stress within a bicultural context foradolescents of Mexican descent. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic MinorityPsychology, 9, 171–184.

Rumbaut, R. G., & Portes, A. (2001). Ethnicities: Children of immigrantsin America. Berkeley: University of California Press and Russell SageFoundation.

Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation.Child Development, 71, 1072–1085.

Stipek, D., de la Sota, A., & Weishaupt, L. (1999). Life lessons: Anembedded classroom approach to preventing high-risk behaviors amongpreadolescents. Elementary School Journal, 99, 433–451.

Thornberry, T. P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency.Criminology, 25, 863–891.

Upchurch, D. M., Aneshensel, C. S., Sucoff, C.A., & Levy-Storms, L.(1999). Neighborhood and family contexts of adolescent sexual activity.Journal of marriage and the Family, 61, 920–933.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). An older and more diverse nationby midcentury. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/012496.html

Vega, M. R., Zimmerman, R., Gil, A., Warheit, G. J., & Apospori,E. (1993). Acculturation strain theory: Its application in explain-ing drug use behavior among Cuban and other Hispanic youth.In M. R. De La Rosa & J.-L. R. Adrados (Eds.), Drug abuseamong minority youth: Advances in research and methodology.National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series, 130,144–162.

Vinokurov, A., Trickett, E. J., & Birman, D. (2002). Acculturative hasslesand immigrant adolescents: A life-domain assessment for Soviet JewishRefugees. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 425–445.

Yerby, J. (1995). Family systems theory reconsidered: Integrating socialconstruction theory and dialectical process. Communication Theory, 4,339–365.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s at

Urb

ana-

Cha

mpa

ign]

at 1

0:52

03

Dec

embe

r 20

13